[INTJ] How the Universe Exists. - Page 3

How the Universe Exists.

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
Thank Tree46Thanks

This is a discussion on How the Universe Exists. within the INTJ Forum - The Scientists forums, part of the NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects category; Originally Posted by Stawker You're right in thinking that I deem it all a cop out. And this last paragraph ...

  1. #21

    Quote Originally Posted by Stawker View Post
    You're right in thinking that I deem it all a cop out. And this last paragraph you've written, the fact that it provides no insight whatsoever, is the deal breaker for me. Not only does this idea require us to change our definitions of things only to grant them opposites, it also doesn't show us anything valuable by doing so. And to go to such lengths as to apply this idea to accrue the origins of the universe is an outright insult to universe firstly and then to science.

    @danielshole

    If you wish to speak only of 'what is', then that by itself excludes the notion of all things having opposites. In any case, this mystical mode of thinking is beyond me. If I want to know the origins of the universe, then I know I have decades, maybe centuries, of scientific work in front of me rather than finding analogies as shortcuts to my goal. If I wish to know about life and death, those again are very broad topics that cannot be done justice to in a few lines, or with the help of a few analogies. Bottom line is, there's still too much we have to learn before we can go anywhere with these musings.
    I think that's fair. However! I think we have an innate inclination to progressively complicate things in the universe. Just as single celled organisms do. What I've found out, though, is that complicated things usually have a very simple answer. We use language in discussion to bring heaven down to Earth, or to explain Heaven in terms of Earth; it is difficult to explain things without using other things as reference, but we can try.

  2. #22
    ENTJ


    Quote Originally Posted by danielshole View Post
    I think that's fair. However! I think we have an innate inclination to progressively complicate things in the universe. Just as single celled organisms do. What I've found out, though, is that complicated things usually have a very simple answer. We use language in discussion to bring heaven down to Earth, or to explain Heaven in terms of Earth; it is difficult to explain things without using other things as reference, but we can try.
    Well, if we go by what we know of ourselves through Psychology, we're actually very mentally lazy. We would never complicate things if there was no need to. Cognitive ease is pleasurable. Perhaps your thinking that there's a simple answer to the apparently complex problems is also an indication of our lazy-minded nature. Our language is imperfect, no doubt. But the alternative is either creating the perfect language, which the logicians have been trying to do since antiquity but stopped at Wittgenstein, or it is to cut down our knowledge by means of language thereby losing parts of our knowledge in the process. Neither is very appreciable. To reduce philosophical quandaries of 'what is life?' to platitudes such as 'life is love' is so counterproductive and devoid of insight that it's almost an insult to the question. If I try to answer that question, with my current meager state of knowledge, you would see me taking into account our biology, physics, economics, psychology, and what else do I know. Everything, everything I know or will ever know will have to be considered. That's exactly why questions like that have never been answered to anyone's satisfaction.

    True that our science is actually quasi-science, and that it only describes and doesn't explain. But this is our first sincere attempt at trying to 'know'. You would think that after all these millennia of meditation why the monks at Tibet or Burma still haven't come out with any answers about the universe, and you would be right. Their attempt at getting to know the universe is really just an attempt at knowing themselves. With this kind of thinking, ultimately you'll find that you've only come to learn of your own ability to find analogies and weave them into a coherent whole but have known absolutely nothing about the universe. There's a lot of work to do when you know that the statement 'there's always a simple answer' itself requires a rigorous proof.

  3. #23
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by danielshole View Post
    I'm thankful for this. In my previous post I mentioned some components of mathematics: deductive and empirical arguments. I think what's interesting are mathematical proofs, because they state objective truths.

    What I mean is that proofs describe everything in the container, but they don't describe the container itself. Hopefully that makes what I tried to say more clear. I'd love to talk about this some more, though.

    I once was taking an UBER home from Los Angeles to Orange County. The ride was about 50 minutes long and I hailed the ride at about 2am. The driver was a Caucasian man in his 50s or so. His Hyundai had an unsavory smell, he drove a dreadful 50 miles an hour on the highway and he was meekish when communicating--never using more than one or 2 syllable words in his short sentences--he was odd. But I struck up conversation with this man anyway and asked him if he were a math teacher--just a feeling I had at the time. He said he was. He started to talk about how beautiful proofs were and how maths exists in the Universe as a extension of language. I never took math too seriously when I was younger and regret it. I was more into language and writing for some reason.
    I feel kinda similar even though perhaps I studied more and know mathematics than you ... but similar to physics, it's like the stuff that people are research and are really into the subject seems so beyond your ability to delve into when you're struggle with more basic stuff ... like quantum physics and string theory sound interesting but it's seems so outside my knowledge to even touch hen I struggle physics 101 .. and similarly math seems like it has interesting things with number theory and such but it seems so outside my understanding when I struggle with trigonometry and basic calc.

    ...and that's coming from me ..who actually is pretty educated and feels that I can take on any subject. Quatum physics and advanced math stuff feels to me like mountains I could maybe climb, but have yet to even approached and realistically may never get to. I feel like others who are less into such things are even more turned off.. wouldn't even consider going near such mountains.
    Last edited by desire machine; 03-12-2017 at 11:51 AM.

  4. #24
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by Stawker View Post
    You're right in thinking that I deem it all a cop out. And this last paragraph you've written, the fact that it provides no insight whatsoever, is the deal breaker for me. Not only does this idea require us to change our definitions of things only to grant them opposites, it also doesn't show us anything valuable by doing so. And to go to such lengths as to apply this idea to accrue the origins of the universe is an outright insult to universe firstly and then to science.
    I didn't know the universe was so emotionally sensitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stawker View Post
    If you wish to speak only of 'what is', then that by itself excludes the notion of all things having opposites.
    I disagree. While I'm not totally confident of the idea that everything at it's core only exists in terms of opposites, and I'm not sure what insights that would provide... I do believe such a theory could be accurate and could have deep insights. I was just sharing skepticism. I believe skepticism should go both ways... and lacking skepticism I think is the only thing that science would find insulted by.
    stathamspeacoat and danielshole thanked this post.

  5. #25
    ENTJ


    Quote Originally Posted by desire machine View Post
    I didn't know the universe was so emotionally sensitive.
    I am, though. I value things so much that any attempt which doesn't do them justice is counted as an insult by me.

    I disagree. While I'm not totally confident of the idea that everything at it's core only exists in terms of opposites, and I'm not sure what insights that would provide... I do believe such a theory could be accurate and could have deep insights. I was just sharing skepticism. I believe skepticism should go both ways... and lacking skepticism I think is the only thing that science would find insulted by.
    What would be the opposite of, say, moment (torque)? Now, you can reach an answer but only by excluding vital parts of the concept of torque and considering only those which help you find an opposite for it. The simple amount of contortions required for our usual definitions (which are only coined because they 'work' and others don't) suffices to debunk the idea of opposites (because it implies that we need to create an entirely new system which would never work).

    Thinking that some alternate mode of thought may provide answers where science couldn't isn't skepticism of science. And science is a methodology, if you manage get anywhere with your alternate mode of thinking, then that thinking will become science. You can't be skeptical of science but you can be skeptical of the answers that science gives.
    desire machine thanked this post.

  6. #26
    ENTP - The Visionaries

    Quote Originally Posted by Stawker View Post
    I am, though. I value things so much that any attempt which doesn't do them justice is counted as an insult by me.



    What would be the opposite of, say, moment (torque)? Now, you can reach an answer but only by excluding vital parts of the concept of torque and considering only those which help you find an opposite for it. The simple amount of contortions required for our usual definitions (which are only coined because they 'work' and others don't) suffices to debunk the idea of opposites (because it implies that we need to create an entirely new system which would never work).
    I agree it requires mental hoolahoops .. but that doesn't mean it's not necessarily accurate or insightful..I mean you could say coming up with calculus and netownian physics or any other scientific theory required mental-hoolahoops.

    And I'm not exactly the "opposites theory" Torque is rotational force, so the opposite of rotational and force i guess is the opposite of torque..I think it's perhaps easier coming up with concepts that potentially debunk the opposite concept than trying to make things fit it. I think liquid might be a good one... because you couldn't say solid because what about gases? Paper can't be the opposite of rock, what about scissor. Things that are spit into threes I think would make the whole opposite thing hard to argue.

    But my point was more that you should be open to the idea that perhaps the opposites idea has some truth and insight to it. Perhaps the theory needs to be refined. Perhaps it only applies to certain types of concept or substances. Perhaps it applies to certain types of physical phenomena. for example matter and antimatter, positive and negative charge etc. Perhaps because I'm entp I like thinking in terms of any possibilities and don't like when people are dismissive of ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stawker View Post
    Thinking that some alternate mode of thought may provide answers where science couldn't isn't skepticism of science. And science is a methodology, if you manage get anywhere with your alternate mode of thinking, then that thinking will become science. You can't be skeptical of science but you can be skeptical of the answers that science gives.
    I'm confused by what you're arguing here. When I was talking about skepticism, I referring to skepticism with regards to the theory of opposites stuff. You should be skeptical that it's not accurate, but also skeptical that it could be.

    Also in terms science.. I think science tends to refer to applying the scientific method. Pretty much all scientific theories before the scientific method is applied start out as just philosophical musings.. for example theory of relativity, newtonian physics etc. ... philosophical musing can come first to come up with a hypothesis.. they can also come later to help to explain results of experiments. You can certain gain a lot of insight from alternative modes developing ideas than just scientific experimentation.. and scientific experimentation and other modes of developing thoughts ( philosophical musing, debating etc) are usually complimentary and often overlap... but sometimes they don't that well.. sometimes its hard to devise experiments that can test a theory, and so theories are left without much scientific evidence, but may still be accurate nonetheless .. and so I don't think so much emphasis should be placed on the scientific method as if it's the only source of insight and truth. I mean for example mathematics is incredibly insightful and it's hardly scientific at all. It's all a priori logic.
    Stawker and stathamspeacoat thanked this post.

  7. #27
    ENTJ


    Quote Originally Posted by desire machine View Post
    I agree it requires mental hoolahoops .. but that doesn't mean it's not necessarily accurate or insightful..I mean you could say coming up with calculus and netownian physics or any other scientific theory required mental-hoolahoops.

    And I'm not exactly the "opposites theory" Torque is rotational force, so the opposite of rotational and force i guess is the opposite of torque..I think it's perhaps easier coming up with concepts that potentially debunk the opposite concept than trying to make things fit it. I think liquid might be a good one... because you couldn't say solid because what about gases? Paper can't be the opposite of rock, what about scissor. Things that are spit into threes I think would make the whole opposite thing hard to argue.

    But my point was more that you should be open to the idea that perhaps the opposites idea has some truth and insight to it. Perhaps the theory needs to be refined. Perhaps it only applies to certain types of concept or substances. Perhaps it applies to certain types of physical phenomena. for example matter and antimatter, positive and negative charge etc. Perhaps because I'm entp I like thinking in terms of any possibilities and don't like when people are dismissive of ideas.
    Contortions of definitions, not of our mind.

    I tend to prefer experimentation when it comes to acquiring knowledge about the external world. Almost 99% of discoveries are made in experiments; only the 1% is the stroke of genius like the Theory of Relativity et al. Those are behemoth leaps but ultimately unreliable. People are free to speculate but if their speculations fail to integrate relevant data, or ignore contradicting data, then I feel it my responsibility to shut them down. Often people speculate and persevere to the extent that they create a sophisticated theory which is mere speculation alone. But since so much effort has been invested, it becomes impossible to just drop the theory even when evidence against it keeps on mounting. That's the birth of dogma. I don't like that, and I hope no one else here does. This is why I'm so dismissive of speculation at the slightest hint of their going wrong. How do you think religions came to be?

    I'm confused by what you're arguing here. When I was talking about skepticism, I referring to skepticism with regards to the theory of opposites stuff. You should be skeptical that it's not accurate, but also skeptical that it could be.
    I construed your intent to be skeptical of mainstream science so it was in reply to my interpretation of your intention.

    Also in terms science.. I think science tends to refer to applying the scientific method. Pretty much all scientific theories before the scientific method is applied start out as just philosophical musings.. for example theory of relativity, newtonian physics etc. ... philosophical musing can come first to come up with a hypothesis.. they can also come later to help to explain results of experiments. You can certain gain a lot of insight from alternative modes developing ideas than just scientific experimentation.. and scientific experimentation and other modes of developing thoughts ( philosophical musing, debating etc) are usually complimentary and often overlap... but sometimes they don't that well.. sometimes its hard to devise experiments that can test a theory, and so theories are left without much scientific evidence, but may still be accurate nonetheless .. and so I don't think so much emphasis should be placed on the scientific method as if it's the only source of insight and truth. I mean for example mathematics is incredibly insightful and it's hardly scientific at all. It's all a priori logic.
    Fair enough. But Mathematics isn't about the external world. It's about the relations between our own conceptions. Which is why Math applied to external world is called 'Applied Math'. You don't have perfect triangles in reality, after all. You can say I don't consider Math a science but it nonetheless has insight and truth and to that end, I conjecture it's because of its place as the purest construction of our a priori understanding. Since we interact with the world, and this is our purest form of understanding, it has to have some insight, but only in relation to us. But this too is speculation. So I'd rather treat Math as an entirely separate enterprise.
    desire machine thanked this post.

  8. #28

    An ENTP and ENTJ. How interesting.
    desire machine and stathamspeacoat thanked this post.

  9. #29

    Quote Originally Posted by danielshole View Post
    An ENTP and ENTJ. How interesting.
    I was going to post that "there's no way I'd rather spend my Sunday than watching an ENTP and ENTJ debate" but I didn't want to disrupt their conversation haha

    It really is fantastic to see. I am enjoying it.
    desire machine and danielshole thanked this post.

  10. #30

    What a fascinating read and it's so refreshing and energizing to know that other people introspect the same way I do.

    I don't really have anything to add, but I did want to say that I thought daoism was a path and that reincarnation was just one thing certain daoists believe. Maybe I need to brush up on my understanding. Another path this reminds me of is the Druid path where one uses science to find truths, both universal and subjective. Like what I thought I understood about daoist ideas, Druidry is definitely something that is a path with no linking dogma; just the recognition that nature and science can bring one closer to truth.
    stathamspeacoat thanked this post.


     
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Does our universe take refuge inside a black hole of another universe?
    By Kevinaswell in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-16-2017, 11:22 AM
  2. Why do you think we, or anything, exists?
    By How Do You KNOW in forum Critical Thinking & Philosophy
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-18-2011, 03:16 PM
  3. This still exists?!
    By ilphithra in forum General Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-12-2010, 10:07 AM
  4. A new giant clue that helps explain why the universe exists.
    By Kevinaswell in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 11:38 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:02 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0